this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
2514 points (94.0% liked)
Malicious Compliance
19530 readers
4 users here now
People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.
======
-
We ENCOURAGE posts about events that happened to you, or someone you know.
-
We ACCEPT (for now) reposts of good malicious compliance stories (from other platforms) which did not happen to you or someone you knew. Please use a [REPOST] tag in such situations.
-
We DO NOT ALLOW fiction, or posts that break site-wide rules.
======
Also check out the following communities:
!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I can't imagine owning a business and actively promoting your willing to give up sales because of some random person's beliefs.
I fully understand consumers not shopping at a store that puts up signs you disagree with, you can just go to another one.
Nothing wrong in believing in and supporting the good things. I just think I'd not agitate customers if it were my business.
That's the ridiculous thing about this entire case. This was a web designer and bigot who made websites for married couples. There were no homosexual couples asking the designer to make them a wedding website. She had one fake web request, and the Illegitimate Court said she had a right to discriminate against imaginary people.
This opens the floodgates to the rest of the bigots who want to protest the existence of people they hate by denying them services.
Actually! There was no website. It was all made up.
Thanks for pointing that out! It's the most obvious psy-op yet and people still aren't catching on.
I'm actually surprised, I thought the reason they were reluctant to endorse the so-called Independent State Legislature Theory because they didn't want to erode their already fragile credibility in light of the seemingly endless corruption scandals. Then they go and basically ignore the entire concept of standing and make a ruling based on literally nothing! I think I need to reexamine how smart I think they are...
An argument I've seen to explain this decision was that it detracted from the judiciary's influence/power by instead empowering state legislatures. Take that as you will, but I wouldn't put it past them.
I guess? But like, if the Independent State Legislature of California decided to go along with the decision and become the People's Republic of California then the Court could just say "no but not like that tho" and then ban California from doing that. They must still care somewhat about credibility/legitimacy, but I guess they just couldn't help themselves when the chance to attack The Gays was available.